[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Implausible appointments (click to view)
Date: April 21, 2010
Two big political appointments coming up in the near future — on both sides of the border.

Governor General Michaelle Jean says she plans to step down at the end of September, ruling out the possibility of a term extension. This means Prime Minister Harper will finally get a chance to appoint a new GG of his own choosing, only the second time in 43 years that a Conservative prime minister has had such an opportunity.

Meanwhile, the Gerald Ford-era Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has decided to retire in the States, and in doing so given President Obama his second vacancy appointment to the high court.

In both countries, the issue of minority representation — or should I say majority representation — is a bit of a sticky one. Three of the last five governor generals have been women, and the last two in particular have been non-white women to boot. In the US, the Supreme Court has become steadily dominated by Catholics and Jews over the years, to the point where Stevens' retirement marks the departure of the only sitting justice who was a member of the country's majority faith.

It's kind of a dilemma because it seems a tad intensive to employ a sort of reverse affirmative action, and appoint a white male GG or Protestant Supreme Court justice to even out minority over-representation. Who wants to go on record as the leader who reversed the tide of minority success?

On the other hand, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the symbolically highest institutions of our government should at least bear some passing resemblance to the majority of subjects they rule over.

[Psudo]

How much does John Paul Stevens' religion actually affect his job performance? In 2005, he wrote a dissenting argument opposing the display of the 10 commandments in public places because doing so "endorses the divine code of the 'Judeo-Christian' God." That and his liberal takes on strongly religiously-correlated issues (gay rights, abortion, etc) and you can make a pretty strong case that his religion is totally irrelevant to the way he did his job.

That being the case, why is anyone tracking the demographics of his peers and potential replacements?

We've decided that a judge can't have political opinions; if he disagrees with us it demonstrates bias, and if he agrees with us it's a "litmus test" we shouldn't use. We've decided that since we can't look at their minds, their demographic is all we can judge by.

We could look at their legal philosophy, but that's so hard. We, as a nation, would have to actually know enough about legal philosophies and their consequences to elect senators who could expose bad or controversial legal logic in prospective judges. It's easier just to root for the potential first half-black, half-Korean agnostic woman on the Supreme Court regardless of whether she's competent.

[BartSimpson]

Protestants in the US are not a 'majority' faith because Protestants include a myriad of diverse sects such as the Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists (and there's subsects of Methodism), and etc.

[Psudo]

The same could be said of types of Buddhism, or of Communism, or of any mindset religious or otherwise, Bart. Sure, it's a category of faiths rather than a single, monolithic religion. It can still be said that most Americans fit into that category. In that sense, it is still the majority faith in the USA.

[BartSimpson]

Psudo wrote:

The same could be said of types of Buddhism, or of Communism, or of any mindset religious or otherwise, Bart. Sure, it's a category of faiths rather than a single, monolithic religion. It can still be said that most Americans fit into that category. In that sense, it is still the majority faith in the USA.

Forgive me, but anymore the majority 'faith' in the USA is consumerism.

[PTBO]

Yes I often grow concerned over the sad sorry plight of the white male myself... When a hard working white man can't get a do-nothing politically motivated appointment as Her Majesty's regal representive then this country has gone to hell.

In Martin's defense- Jean was probably the best decision he made in his Prime Ministership- It was a francophone's turn and he picked a allophone- such a bitch slap to the Bloc and their tireless efforts to woo allos into the sepratist fold.

[Psudo]

hahaha, so true.

And yet that has little to do the point of religion by demographics.

[JJ]

Psudo wrote:

How much does John Paul Stevens' religion actually affect his job performance? In 2005, he wrote a dissenting argument opposing the display of the 10 commandments in public places because doing so "endorses the divine code of the 'Judeo-Christian' God." That and his liberal takes on strongly religiously-correlated issues (gay rights, abortion, etc) and you can make a pretty strong case that his religion is totally irrelevant to the way he did his job.

That being the case, why is anyone tracking the demographics of his peers and potential replacements?

There are two basic theories regarding minority/majority representation of this sort.

One is, as you said, that such representatives will actively use their identity as the root of their philosophy, and deliberately serve both the ideological and material interests of the community they come from.

The other, however, is the theory that minority representation is a good unto itself, regardless of how "well" the minority delegates represent or serve whatever interests their group is supposed to possess.

The idea is that minorities grant legitimacy to our institutions through their participation alone. So, the fact that Clarance Thomas is a right-wing Republican doesn't matter; the fact that he is a black Supreme Court justice makes the Supreme Court a more legitimate institution in the eyes of black Americans than it would be without him.

If high offices of government are dominated by individuals who don't represent the national majority demographics, then the majority will start to feel increasingly alienated from its ruling class. And that is probably a bad thing, in the long term.

[martin14]

JJ wrote:

One is, as you said, that such representatives will actively use their identity as the root of their philosophy, and deliberately serve both the ideological and material interests of the community they come from.

Witness our current GG, doing it in spades.

All such representatives must be chosen to serve the interests
of their country, and not pursue their own individual agenda.

[xerxes]

BartSimpson wrote:

Psudo wrote:

The same could be said of types of Buddhism, or of Communism, or of any mindset religious or otherwise, Bart. Sure, it's a category of faiths rather than a single, monolithic religion. It can still be said that most Americans fit into that category. In that sense, it is still the majority faith in the USA.

Forgive me, but anymore the majority 'faith' in the USA is consumerism.

Amen brother.

[Teikiatsu]

JJ wrote:

If high offices of government are dominated by individuals who don't represent the national majority demographics, then the majority will start to feel increasingly alienated from its ruling class. And that is probably a bad thing, in the long term.

This.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court is not an elected position but an appointed one. I think that Americans understand the people placed there should be there because of credentials not skin color or local culture. We didn't care about Sotomayor's appointment because she was a hispanic female, we wanted someone objective. We got a liberal pro-social justice who thought the appeals courts were where you set policy.

Unfortunately the American SCOTUS has more and more become a political ping pong game, some place where ideology is more important than justice. It's kind of a farce, we have 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and a moderate. The big issues are decided by that moderate and whether he or she 1) feels emotional about the issue, or 2) feels like doing their job and studies the Constitution.

The SCOTUS appointee should be a person who looks to the Constitution, the Federalist papers, and have a 17th Century dictionary handy to understand what the Founders wanted. Obama could do that, but I’m sure he’ll want to put another liberal who thinks the Constitution is a living document and prefers to look at International law before the founding documents. I also have a sneaking suspicion he’ll appoint an open homosexual justice for the whole ‘demographics’ thing.

[Teikiatsu]

BartSimpson wrote:

Forgive me, but anymore the majority 'faith' in the USA is consumerism.

Forgive me, but I could not let this pass.

I understand you appear to have a low opinion of America and capitalism, but continuing to make statements like this are not 'cool.' They do not win you 'points.' They in fact make you look like a 'child.'

Bring reason and facts or stay home. I signed on this forum because it looked mature with a minimum of trolling. Please have the decency to keep it that way. Sure we can joke but that is not 'joking.' You forgot the smiley

[martin14]

Teikiatsu wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Forgive me, but anymore the majority 'faith' in the USA is consumerism.

Forgive me, but I could not let this pass.

I understand you appear to have a low opinion of America and capitalism, but continuing to make statements like this are not 'cool.' They do not win you 'points.' They in fact make you look like a 'child.'

Bring reason and facts or stay home. I signed on this forum because it looked mature with a minimum of trolling. Please have the decency to keep it that way. Sure we can joke but that is not 'joking.' You forgot the smiley

I predict a noob is going to get a real education in a little while....

[KyleEverett]

Teikiatsu wrote:

I also have a sneaking suspicion he’ll appoint an open homosexual justice for the whole ‘demographics’ thing.

And what, pray tell, would be the issue with that? So long has he has a solid legal background his sexuality should not matter.

And also, there will be reasoning, and stuff with a lot of the posters, others will use plain rhetoric and there is still trolling. Also, outright dismissal of other people's viewpoints cause they don't fit into yours will not win you many friends here.

[DrHobo]

Quote:

The idea is that minorities grant legitimacy to our institutions through their participation alone. So, the fact that Clarance Thomas is a right-wing Republican doesn't matter; the fact that he is a black Supreme Court justice makes the Supreme Court a more legitimate institution in the eyes of black Americans than it would be without him.

I can agree with this idea to an extent. The fact that Americans of any given race can become Supreme Court justices is crucial to the legitimacy of that institution. To that end, the fact that Clarance Thomas is a black Supreme Court justice verifies that black Americans can do so, thus granting the legitimacy you speak of.

However, it is important to note that this legitimacy is not lost if there are ever no black Americans sitting as a justice (at least during any reasonable period of time compared to the statistical probability of such a thing). As your comic notes, it's now become standard to expect a minority nomination, even to the point that the choice of a majority candidate would be shocking. In our now-constant quest to grant our forms of government legitimacy in this sense, we are actively discriminating against "majority race/religion" individuals who may or may not be more qualified.

In my mind, this is just as horrific as a court where minorities are discriminated against. Discrimination and racism are equally wrong and offensive no matter which group is getting the treatment. Besides which, Americans deserve the appointments to this lofty and vital institution to be the best possible based on the legitimate abilities and skills they have shown, and nothing else. In my mind, choosing a justice for any other reason than the merit of their ideas and actions actually causes the institution to loselegitimacy.

Now, what you consider to be the legitimate abilities and skills of a potential justice is debatable (I'm a big proponent of constitutional knowledge and the ability to decide against their known views when they find an example of them being constitutionally or legally off base), but that may be a topic for another thread.

As far as appointment of the Governor General goes, I will refrain from lengthy comment as I am an American and I cannot speak to the impact the GG's decisions and actions would have on me as a Canadian would. I will say, though, that I would hold the same ideas as I detailed above regarding legitimacy to any government office.